Toxic Chemicals

Although environmental regulatory efforts have been focused on the waste products of industrial production, there is growing awareness that the thousands of synthetic chemicals deliberately introduced into commerce may pose a more insidious threat to human health and to the integrity of the earth's ecosystems. Several illustrations of the nature of this threat captured public attention during the year.

The danger to the earth's ecosystems was dramatized by reports that the use of fluorocarbons may be seriously reducing the earth's ozone shield in the stratosphere. Almost two billion pounds of fluorocarbons are produced each year, primarily for use as refrigerants and as propellants for aerosol products. Unlike most chemicals, they do not degrade or decompose in the lower atmosphere but slowly diffuse upward. When they reach the stratosphere (approximately 30,000 to 160,000 feet above sea level), the fluorocarbons react with ultraviolet radiation from the sun to produce chlorine, and the chlorine atoms in turn attack and reduce the ozone which shields the earth's surface from ultraviolet radiation. The possible consequences include not only an increase in human cancer, but also, in the abstract words of the authoritative government report on the subject (Federal Task Force on Inadvertent Modification of the Stratosphere, Fluorocarbons and the Environment, June 1975), possible changes "in physiological, biochemical, anatomical, and growth characteristics of certain plant and animal species; health effects on livestock; disturbances in the balance of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems; and changes in the stability and effectiveness of agricultural chemicals." That such changes could be produced by the use of refrigerators and underarm deodorants is a profound comment on the relation of our life-style today to our natural surroundings.

The health hazards that the synthetics can pose, and the possible economic consequences of regulatory measures, were highlighted by the controversy surrounding vinyl chloride (VC) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

The PVC situation was remarkable in at least two respects. First, the health threat was unusually well documented. At least fifteen former PVC workers were found to have died of an extremely rare and fatal liver cancer known as angiosarcoma. Cases of angiosarcoma in nonworkers who lived near PVC plants were also discovered. These cancers were clearly attributable to extended exposure to PVC, and, in addition, the chemical was suspected of causing other types of cancer, noninalignant liver diseases, and certain unique occupational diseases.

Second, PVC is one of the most widely used chemicals in the economy, finding its way into literally thousands of products, and production has been growing at an annually compounded rate of about 14 percent. Apporximately 350,000 workers are employed in plants fabricating PVC products. A study done by Arthur D. Little for the chemical industry, in 1974, claimed that a ban on vinyl chloride would result in the loss of 1.7 to 2.2 million jobs and a $65 to $90 billion reduction in the GNP.

Although a ban is not likely, Occupational Safety and Health Administration set stringent standards for workplace exposure to PVC, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to restrict release of PVC into the general environment. But the combination of a clear health threat from a chemical of major economic importance poses the most difficult kind of tradeoff problems, and the question of how society will deal with such chemicals in general, or with PVC in particular, is far from settled.

One lesson learned over the past five or six years is that the type of problem posed by fluorocarbons or PVCs is inevitable in an advanced industrial society. In the late 1960s, when attention focused on DDT, then on mercury, then on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), each new crisis or problem was treated as a unique occurrence. But, as the crises began to occur every six months or so—with their number seemingly limited only by the resources of the scientific community and the time available to environmental reporters to pursue the latest horror story—it became evident that there is a general toxic chemicals problem. Studies in the past few years have amply confirmed this.

The government's response to the problem was to propose a Toxic Substances Control Act, requiring new chemicals to be tested and giving the EPA regulatory authority to control the distribution and use of both new and existing chemicals. The toxic substances bill was sent to Congress by the president early in 1971. It passed both the House and the Senate in 1972, but the two houses could not resolve their differences on a number of issues, including the question of requiring the testing of chemicals before they are marketed. In 1973 the bill was again passed by both houses, but once more agreement could not be reached. During 1975 both the House and Senate held further hearings on the bill, but the outlook for enactment of such legislation remained uncertain at the end of the year.

Although additional regulatory authority to deal with toxic substances may be needed, some findings which came to light in December illustrated the need for better enforcement of existing laws. At least seventy persons connected with a small plant in Hopewell, Virginia, were found to be suffering serious effects from exposure to Kepone, a pesticide which was the sole product of the plant. The effects included sterility, nerve and liver damage, and loss of memory. Twenty-nine employees of the plant were hospitalized for treatment, and a wide area around Hopewell was found to have been contaminated with Kepone. Published accounts later indicated that the tragedy could have been prevented through proper followup on data that were obtained by monitoring agencies and effective enforcement of state laws and federal laws covering pesticides, air and water pollution, and occupational health.

The experience gained in regulating toxic substances the past few years was synthesized by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) chaired by J. Clarence Davies of RFF. The report, Decision Making for Regulating Chemicals in the Environment (NAS, 1975), identified four key requirements for effective chemical regulation: a sound statutory and organizational basis; openness and access to the decision-making process; the availability of adequate and reliable information; and the proper use of analysis. In each of these areas it made a number of recommendations. The report found that neither cost-benefit analysis nor any other analytical technique was capable of providing a scientific way of making regulatory decisions. It concluded, "There is no substitute for an experienced decision maker exercising good judgment."

The NAS report also recommended that the EPA should identify neglected areas in hazard or pollution control and determine whether existing legal authority is adequate to address them. The report singled out problems of indoor air pollution such as asbestos particles within buildings. The importance of asbestos was emphasized in December by the release of a study by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine of the City University of New York. The study found asbestos concentrations within many office buildings to be as high as the concentrations around asbestos plants. In the opinion of the Mount Sinai researchers, the concentrations were high enough to significantly increase the risk of cancer to the exposed office workers.

The past year has certainly added to the experience of decision makers in dealing with toxic chemical problems. But the strain put on good judgment by the magnitude of the problems also has been made evident. The hard choices and the ominous hazards posed by fluorocarbons, PVC, and asbestos will be repeated for other chemicals in future years.